Good thinking. So we could add:

• social media mentions
• # of [new] subscribers who [first/]only watch/binge a given show

You’re welcome, Nuclear Noel

270toWin, Rasmussen, RealClearPolitics, and fivethirtyeight

Apparently real (corporate link warning)

LOL lmk what your psych says about that

When you try it, make sure it’s in a domain where there is some chance of starting an international conflict

Very true. Mentioned this elsewhere someone suggestion a large watermark:

I went a different route, though I avoided placing the callout somewhere it may be accidentally cropped.

I hope the, uh, non-disinformation can have a simple start here, and if we’re big enough some day that kind of thing is a problem maybe we re-adjust. Of course, nothing stopping someone from recreating something to their less-scrupulous heart’s delight. (in the case someone is re-creating something to intentionally mislead, not re-creating based on their expectations of people’s knowledge and BS meters)

Ahh just can’t wait for the proliferation of high-quality generated videos…

Any idea of the recidivism rates vs. us here in the United Prison Industrial Complex of America?

Suppose both aight?

A drive-through or drive-thru (a sensational spelling of the word through), is a type of take-out service provided by a business that allows customers to purchase products without leaving their cars.

Sensational spelling is the deliberate spelling of a word in a non-standard way for special effect.

That is crap. What-ifs don’t benefit you directly like that.

What do you mean?

snoopy

When it comes to violence, I pretty much stop at the headlines. Watched brutal videos many years ago & I’m set for a lifetime on the bulk of true crime and also fictional violence.

I was actually wondering if materials could be released in a limited fashion: send an application, go to a reading room… try to avoid leaks but still let people get science done or whatnot.

Wife doesn’t seem to like cicadas but still read through his work notes?

They missed him calling sleep apnea and the ability to adequately intake nutrients needed for life “harmless“

Monkey wing nut?

It’s funny how as soon as something is either invisible or disconnected by time from something else, it suddenly is a matter of belief for some people.

I’m glad we don’t hear debates about whether it is possible for an internal combustion engine to power a motor vehicle at highway speeds.

From the author of the #1 New York Times bestseller Inside of a Dog and The Year of the Puppy, this “elegant and entertaining” (The Boston Globe) explanation of how humans perceive their environments “does more than open our eyes…opens our hearts and minds, too, gently awakening us to a world-in fact, many worlds-we’ve been missing” (USA TODAY).

Alexandra Horowitz shows us how to see the spectacle of the ordinary-to practice, as Sir Arthur Conan Doyle put it, “the observation of trifles.” Structured around a series of eleven walks the author takes, mostly in her Manhattan neighborhood, On Looking features experts on a diverse range of subjects, including an urban sociologist, the well-known artist Maira Kalman, a geologist, a physician, and a sound designer. Horowitz also walks with a child and a dog to see the world as they perceive it. What they see, how they see it, and why most of us do not see the same things reveal the startling power of human attention and the cognitive aspects of what it means to be an expert observer.

Page by page, Horowitz shows how much more there is to see-if only we would really look. Trained as a cognitive scientist, she discovers a feast of fascinating detail, all explained with her generous humor and self-deprecating tone. So turn off the phone and other electronic devices and be in the real world-where strangers communicate by geometry as they walk toward one another, where sounds reveal shadows, where posture can display humility, and the underside of a leaf unveils a Lilliputian universe-where, indeed, there are worlds within worlds within worlds.

From the author of the #1 New York Times mega-bestseller Inside of a Dog comes an equally smart, delightful, and startling exploration of how we perceive our surroundings. You are missing at least eighty percent of what is happening around you right now. You are missing what is happening in your body, in the distance, and right in front of you. In reading these words, you are ignoring an unthinkably large amount of information that continues to bombard all of your senses. The hum of the fluorescent lights; the ambient noise in the room; the feeling of the chair against your legs or back; your tongue touching the roof of your mouth; the tension you are holding in your shoulders or jaw; the constant hum of traffic or a distant lawnmower; the blurred view of your own shoulders and torso in your peripheral vision; a chirp of a bug or whine of a kitchen appliance. Hidden in Plain Sight begins with inattention. It is not meant to help you focus on your reading of Tolstoy; it is not about how to multitask. It is not about how to avoid falling asleep at a lecture or during your grandfather’s tales of boyhood misadventures. Rather, it is about attending to the joys of the unattended, the perceived “ordinary.” Horowitz encourages us to rediscover the extraordinary things that we are missing in our ordinary activities. Even when engaged in the simplest of activities—taking a walk around the block—we pay so little attention to most of what is right before us that we are sleepwalkers in our own lives. So turn off the phone and portable electronics and get into the real world, where you’ll find there are worlds within worlds within worlds.

Snagged it! via library’s free Hoopla (like Libby)

I went a different route, though I avoided placing the callout somewhere it may be accidentally cropped.

I hope the, uh, non-disinformation can have a simple start here, and if we’re big enough some day that kind of thing is a problem maybe we re-adjust. Of course, nothing stopping someone from recreating something to their less-scrupulous heart’s delight. (in the case someone is re-creating something to intentionally mislead, not re-creating based on their expectations of people’s knowledge and BS meters)

Ahh just can’t wait for the proliferation of high-quality generated videos…

You were the change today

Hey @LodeMike@lemmy.today - loved the post.

After sharing my concerns and receiving affirmational feedback, I have made a very small edit to this image.

Please consider using Lemmy’s awesome image hot swap feature to update the image. You may simply tap edit and paste the following link:

https://sh.itjust.works/pictrs/image/0b64e0dc-3e66-4e0c-81b1-953bdb42b002.jpeg

If there any mods reading through here, I might suggest a rule asking folks to use their best judgment to include a similar indicator in similar circumstances.

I’m not much of an “/s” guy, but I think these six letters (parody) can avoid misleading without ruining the fun :)

Not dying:

Maybe my would-be killer gets caught because their psychologist studied the killer’s writings and noticed a troubling pattern.

Guy wants to kill me. Guy complains about me to their therapist without mentioning killing me. Therapist thinks “wait, this sounds like something I’ve read…”

And what they read was some lunatic’s writings that were released. Therapist is then able to report their concerns via appropriate channels and medicates my would-be killer, and I live another day.

Maybe my would-be killer gets caught because their psychologist studied the killer’s writings and noticed a troubling pattern.

I don’t want even more manifestos glorified and memed on 4chan. I’m cognizant there’s generally a reason horrible things see the light of the public eye.

Body cam footage of someone’s worst moments of their life… release it, violate one person’s privacy, keep one officer/department accountable, public has to weigh that tradeoff.

Even releasing lottery winners’ names ruins lives, but otherwise some would assume the lottery’s fraudulent (money going to politicians’ friends)… instead of just a tax on the poor 🌈

Now that you mention it, indeed